Re: [PATCH]lxc: fix an improper comment in lxc_process

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 14/10/13 15:49, Chen Hanxiao wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Osier Yang [mailto:jyang@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 3:34 PM
To: Chen Hanxiao
Cc: libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re:  [PATCH]lxc: fix an improper comment in lxc_process

On 14/10/13 14:22, Chen Hanxiao wrote:
From: Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Fix an improper comment when libvirt has released all resources
for lxc.
Then original comment says "stopped" rather than "released".

Signed-off-by: Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
   src/lxc/lxc_process.c | 2 +-
   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/src/lxc/lxc_process.c b/src/lxc/lxc_process.c
index d07ff13..7746c9b 100644
--- a/src/lxc/lxc_process.c
+++ b/src/lxc/lxc_process.c
@@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ static void virLXCProcessCleanup(virLXCDriverPtr
driver,
       virSystemdTerminateMachine(vm->def->name, "lxc", true);


-    /* now that we know it's stopped call the hook if present */
I see no problem here, given that "it" means the vm process here. It
might be better to have a comma after "stopped" though, with explicitly
pointing out what "it" stands for. I.e.

In this function will handle two scenario:
a) a LXC guest is stopped
b) libvirt has released all resources

But the comments are the SAME. That are not what intended.
I think it's more clear if we could distinguish them.

Hm, I didn't notice it's the second "hook" call.   ACK and pushed.

Osier

--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list




[Index of Archives]     [Virt Tools]     [Libvirt Users]     [Lib OS Info]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]